Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ526 and a spinoff

["Alex Truelsen" <a_skywalker85@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 4/7/02 at 12:58 AM Wonko wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter if the rules have changed since then; at the time of 
the
>> passing of rules 500 and 501, 293 made them illegal. The action of 
creating
>> them violated a rule; thus it was illegal. Saying, "Oh, well, now it's
>> legal, so we'll pretend it was legal then, too" is an illegal alteration 
of
>> the past.
>
> Is there an actual rule that says it's illegal to create rules that 
conflict
> with other rules?  I didn't think there was; that's why my judgment was 
what
> it was.  If the players insist on creating rules that conflict with other
> rules, it's just handled by conflict resolution mechanisms.
>
> Glotmorf


The issue is not creating a rule that's in conflict with another rule. It's
creating a rule which is forbidden by another rule. It's perfectly okay to
create a rule that says "A is true" and another that says "A is false", but
it's not legal to make a rule that says "No rule may say that A is false"
and another that says "A is false".

-At the time of 500 and 501's passing, they were illegal. At the time of The 
Voice's CFJ, they were illegal. At the time of my judgement, 501 was legal. 
Nobody said I had to judge based on what things looked like an nweek ago. 
We've had CFJs that were defunct by eir being judged before. What's the 
problem here?-

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com